The late dictator of Iraq was right on one point in his bombastic letter released days before his execution. 'This harsh situation which... our great Iraq is facing is a new lesson and a new trial for the people,' said Saddam Hussein with an unusual degree of understatement. As if to underline the accuracy of his statement, only a few hours after his death a bomb exploded in a market in Kufa, 80 miles south of Baghdad, killing some 30 people.

Blood is being spilt daily in Iraq. If our leaders are partly responsible for the death of Saddam - and a weakened Republican administration in the White House will certainly look to exploit his demise - then they also bear a responsibility for the continuing ordeal of his countrymen.

There have been innumerable 'turning points' in the last three years, most of which have proved to be anything but. This is partly because our leaders seem to believe that events are somehow supposed to 'turn' without any changes being made to policy.

The death of Saddam will itself have little consequence on the various insurgencies racking the country. The militants are not fighting for the memory of a defunct dictator but for their future. President Bush called the execution 'a step towards democracy', but it is difficult to see how this will be the case unless the White House makes radical changes in its strategy. It is increasingly clear that Bush and his close advisers are set to reject almost in its entirety the report of former Secretary of State James Baker. This is regrettable. Among its recommendations were a switch of American troops from combat operations to training local forces and for dialogue with Syria and Iran.

This paper believes that both are essential if any impact is to be made on the Iraq's chaotic internecine killing.

Speaking to Syria and Iran is a deeply unpleasant and difficult task that no government or diplomat would take on lightly. It is tempting to shun the regimes, though not the populations, of both countries, not least to signal the disgust of the international community for, in the case of Syria, a list of crimes ranging from assassination of senior foreign politicians to human rights abuses on a substantial scale against their own people. In the case of Iran, it is its vile anti-Semitism and the Holocaust denial of the elected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and an aggressive nuclear development policy.

However, if the death of Saddam, who was responsible for the execution of our reporter Farzad Bazoft in 1990, is to be a true turning point in Iraq, we need to grit our teeth and talk.

The Sunni insurgency in the west of Iraq relies on supporters within Syria for crucial logistic support. Every military historian knows that fighting an insurgency benefiting from a safe haven where fighters can rest and resupply is an impossible task. The Syrian regime is pragmatic - that is why it has survived so long. We need to be too.

The same logic applies to Iran. Tehran is the great winner from the Iraq invasion. Its greatest regional rival has been eradicated. Shia politicians with whom the Iranians have had links for years are in positions of power. Its agents have established powerful networks of influence. Only a regional approach to the Iraqi quagmire will bring any success. That of course will involve allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, but it needs to involve enemies too.

It is now obvious that the Americans have committed a catalogue of errors in Iraq. Tony Blair has made it clear he believes that engaging with the White House means influence on President Bush and his close advisers. Many in Britain are sceptical that Blair's words count for much across the Atlantic. The Prime Minister now has what may well be a final chance to prove the doubters wrong. If he can then perhaps Saddam's death will indeed be a turning point. For the sake of the Iraqi people, this newspaper profoundly hopes so.